ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Quality evaluation of scar management information on TikTok: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Social media platforms like TikTok significantly influence health behaviors, yet the quality of scar management content remains under-evaluated. This study analyzes the quality, reliability, and actionability of scar management information on TikTok and examines the relationship between content quality and user engagement. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of the 100 most-liked scar management videos was conducted. Two independent raters evaluated videos using mDISCERN, JAMA benchmark criteria, PEMAT-A/V, and the Global Quality Score (GQS). Creators were categorized as healthcare professionals (HCPs), content creators, or general users. Results: Healthcare professionals produced higher-quality content (GQS: 3.45 vs. 2.15 for creators; Conclusion: A structural disconnect exists on TikTok where accurate medical advice is overshadowed by algorithmically favored, visually stimulating, but often misleading content. Addressing this public health risk requires platform-level algorithmic adjustments and enhanced digital strategies from medical professionals to compete in the attention economy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.